I had never heard the Romans did their own parade of power during Passover. This caused me to think that maybe Andrew Thayer was onto something. Maybe Jesus’ Palm Sunday entry was a kind of parody. But the more I thought about it the less likely Thayer’s idea seemed to me.
Jesus must have been aware of the Roman military display during Passover, but to suggest that his entry was a statement about the Romans is only marginally true, at best Our first clue should be that none of the Gospel accounts, Matthew 21.1-11; Mark 11.1-11; Luke 19.28-40; and John 12.12-19 give any hint about the Romans. Interestingly, John is the only writer who ventures an explanation for the entry and the crowd. What he says is that the crowd is filled with people who had heard about Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, not people clamoring for political revolt.
Our second clue should come from Jesus’ general attitude towards the Roman occupation, which is fundamentally a lack of interest. This lack of interest in Rome is in keeping with his general lack of interest in earthly power. When Satan tempted Jesus in the desert he promised to give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if he would only worship Satan. Jesus responded, “Get out of my sight. It is written that you shall worship God alone, and he alone shall you serve!” We see it again when Jesus dodges all the efforts of his followers to anoint him king. We see it when he was quizzed about the temple tax. “Whose image is on the coin? Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s.” We see it in Jesus’ remark in John 18.36: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” We see it in Jesus’ answer to Pilot before he was crucified: “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.” (John 19.11).
To suggest that Jesus’ triumphal entry was a kind of parody of the Roman power display is to suggest that Jesus was playing some sort of subordinate role. This is patently false. Neither should we see Jesus’ display of peaceful humility by riding into Jerusalem on a donkey as proving how peaceful and humble he was. He was not promoting a political policy. He was not even promoting a policy of human behavior. What he was doing was riding to his death in obedience to his Father. He was riding to his death in order that there would be a means for others to rise from death along with him. What Jesus was doing was intentional and crucial. (The etymology of crucial is crux or cross. The cross was the crucial event in human history.) The Roman parade was a sideshow, deserving of a parody, perhaps, but for Jesus the event was unworthy of mention. Jesus was riding to his death because he was riding to his resurrection. He was riding to establish the one and only Kingdom that is just and true and full of life.
Thayer claimed that Jesus’ subsequent action in the temple, which legitimately could be called a protest, was what got him killed. This contradicts scripture, which plainly states that the leaders were convinced he had to die when he raised Lazarus from the dead! This was hardly a political act, however much the Jewish religious leaders may have felt threatened by it. As far as we know it was an act that went completely unnoticed by the Romans. Thayer emphasized the Roman execution that Jesus suffered. He seems to have missed the fact that Pilot considered Jesus innocent but for the sake of political expedience he caved to the Jewish religious leaders.
After a display of exegesis that I would call butchery, Thayer tries to make a connection between brutal, arrogant Rome and his view of Imperial U.S. Let us note here that the Bible does not sugar-coat the Roman Empire. The book of Revelation equates it with Babylon and promises that it is doomed for its wickedness. But the New Testament is also clear that earthly powers are established by God to limit evil. Yes, they do a bad job of it, generally speaking, but we must not forget that the alternative is brutal strongmen and/or anarchy.
While Thayer tries to draw a line between the purely evil Rome of his imagination and what he sees going on in U.S. government, the government is not his true target. He is commenting on right-wing and/or Donald Trump policy (the two of which are very different things). The line he draws has neither an accurate starting point nor an accurate endpoint. If the government of the U.S. is corrupt and wicked and inefficient and callous, which, to a degree, it is, then the left wing of U.S. politics bears at least as much blame for this as does the right.
His conclusion is that we should arrive at a “kingdom where the vulnerable and the poor are lifted up, and the idols of empire are exposed as frauds.” But think about this last line for a minute. The evidence is great that the vulnerable and poor of this country are in that condition for three major reasons: broken households, deplorable public schools, and a welfare system that, while it provides for the needs of the lowest quintile of society, it also has effectively bound that group in chains of dependency. All three major causes of poverty have been exacerbated by policies coming from the Left. The Left deserves praise for its sympathy and advocacy for the needy. The problem is that its policies have almost always done more harm than good.
It’s easy to point out that Trump is a fraud. There’s plenty of evidence for it. But could Thayer argue with a straight face that Joe Biden was not a fraud? How about Kamala Harris?
It’s very easy to criticize government. Partly because our government has some inherent flaws, but mostly because government is made up of sinners. Guess what. We are not going to rid our government of sinners. Ever. What is really difficult is to come up with solutions that are actually beneficial. What is even harder is to find ways to get good solutions implemented. Nonetheless, thoughtful solution design and the hard labor of implementing those designs are worth pursuing, while whining and casting blame are annoying and usually dishonest.
Another thing I’m pretty sure of: we should stop fretting. Jesus has already established his Kingdom and he has been given full authority. Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28.18). That is our political foundation. Fundamentally, we should adopt Jesus’ attitude toward earthly powers, which was/is disdain. However, mindful of that foundation we must embrace our responsibilities as witnesses, as representatives, as salt. God’s ways sometimes seem harsh, and sometimes they are a gentle embrace, but they are always beneficial.
No matter how frustrated Christians may be with the capricious political turmoil of our day, we must remember God’s sovereignty. Our feelings of helplessness are a crisis of opportunity if they drive us to call on God for his intervention. A united church can pray with much greater power than it can as individual Christians. This is difficult when Christians are divided by polarizing political ideas. But polarization is neither new nor an excuse. The challenge, then, is for Christians to face each other and listen carefully to each other, especially to those perspectives that make us squirm. Rightly pursued, the effort will harden us where we need to be hardened and soften us where we need to be hardened. And if we are not too easily offended, and if we persist in our efforts to understand one another, we will be able to pray great, harmonious prayers that will give God pleasure. When God is pleased, he will act in surprising ways that will give us pleasure, as well.
Recent Comments